[MD] The Edge 2006 Annual Question

[skutvik at online.no]

Ian and Klan.

I had written

> > Phew, are we back at square one again. We have been
> > discussing intellect for aeons and I had the great feeling that the
> > "mood" has slowly swung from the source of all confusion - the
> > initial "mind-definition" - to a more Quality-like one, namely that
> > ZMM is about the social-intellectual transition. If so the above
> > cited passage from ZMM is how intellect's "O" looks on its "S"
> > represented by the Sophists. This ought not be difficult or
> > controversial, it's SOM!

On 13 Jan. you responded
 
> [IG] - If all your telling me is that Plato represents the
> intellectual ascendancy of "O" over the Sophists "S" then it's hardly
> news. We're at square one because you've taken us back to ancient
> Greece. I still don't get your point, your specific point - ie why
> you're telling me this, not what your telling me. That I can read.

The Sophists are not seen as "S"-ists, but as Aretê-ists by ZMM 
and as mystics by DMB, but I'm happy if this is plain going with 
you. My "specific point" will hopefully emerge in the next 
paragraph.  

> > It's agonizing difficult but one point must be clarified. There are
> > two views that intermingle and create confusion if not kept apart. I
> > have presented the ZMM experience as the 4th level rising above the
> > 3rd and that it may be seen as objectivity-out-of- subjectivity, but
> > this is the two views mixed. The first is MOQ's the latter is SOM's
> > (the inter-intellect one).
> 
> [IG] You may have presented it that way and "it may be seen as", but
> that doesn't make it so. In fact that is what we're arguing about. You
> see level 4 as "objectivity out of subjectivity". 

I don't see level 4 as "objectivity out of subjectivity" THAT is 
intellect's own self-congratulating view of itself. The MOQ view is 
that the 4th level is the S/O distinction itself  -  IMO at least!

> I say level 4 got a
> big boost that way thanks to Plato and Aristotle, but they didn't
> define level 4, the MoQ does.

The SOL says that ZMM's story of SOM is the  emergence of the 
4th level! And yes, we must not let intellect define itself - that 
makes for SOM - but let the MOQ define it, and no-one has come 
up with a credible definition other than the SOL. The initial mind-
definition created problems and the symbol-manipulation 
definition is clearly just a definition of language.  

> In the MoQ, level 4 can be far more than
> "Objectivity". 

Yes, it is the subject/object distinction and all possible derivatives 
thereof.!  

> In fact I maintain it should / must be far more than
> that - MoQ gives it a framework in which to evolve further, into the
> MoQ itself. This is the point you seem to either miss, or refuse to
> acknowledge, even by disagreeing.

It's the "far more" which is the source of all difficulties. An 
intellectual level that once "contained" pre-somish world-views, 
then SOM and now the MOQ is impossible. I don't miss this point, 
I only see it too well.

> > To complicate things further the MOQ view has gone through two
> > stages, first the one represented by ZMM's moq where the Plato
> > vs Sophists struggle is the valueless SOM conquering the value-
> > filled past. Then MOQ itself where "the past" becomes the social
> > level and SOM becomes the intellectual and only now the final Q
> > overview occurs wherein the social level has nothing to do with
> > "subjectivism" or intellect with "objectivism", both are the 4th
> > level's creations and its value.
 
> [IG] I don't want to argue the detail in that paragraph, but this is
> you describing how the MoQ represents the evolution of intellect and
> knowledge up to and including Plato. Fine, genuienly fine, I agree
> already. 

If you agree with this you really agree with the SOL, but you try to 
evade in a way much like Pirsig's in the Paul letter. He said that 
"the Greeks developed intellect" (meaning SOM) but then opened 
the Oriental issue to show that intellect can have a non-S/O 
content in another culture. Here you likewise imply an intellect 
that only with the Greeks got the S/O content, before it had 
allegedly had what  ...if not the ancient (in MOQ) social content 
and it turns into a "Metaphysics of Intellect".         

> But what about thousands of years of improvements since ? I
> say it describes that too. 

Yes, the MOQ describes the 4th level's evolution from its Greek 
origin  through various "improvements" - the Cartesian where it 
got the mind/matter form - to the modern times when its values  
began to dominate the Western political scene.     

> (Not to mention where it might go in the
> future - it's an evolutionary framework, not a fossil record of past
> evolution.)

I just wonder. If this open-ended intellect developed the idea that 
the MOQ is nonsense, would that still be the 4th level of the 
MOQ?  Would there be a MOQ at all?     

> > This has the consequence that the social past (which in ZMM was
> > identified with Aretê ) only looked attractive for Phaedrus because
> > it is non-dualistic (the same reason that Barfield looks to
> > "original participation" as his Golden Age). Unless this second
> > phase is completed the MOQ will remain in limbo. Either shunning ZMM
> > because it stands out like a sore thumb or - like DMB - find some
> > outlandish explanation about the Sophists being religious mystics
> > and disappearing into that foggy land.
 
> [IG] - What do you mean by "this second phase" ? Again I can see what
> you say, but not why?

The first phase was the current (SOM) view of the Greeks being 
re-described by ZMM, the second phase was ZMM being re-
described by LILA as above that the ancient times weren't DQ, 
but social quality, only Golden Age-like for being non-dualism 
...etc.    

> Whatever you identify Aretê with in ZMM, we
> know it went further in Lila. 

Yes, it got DQ/SQ divided with the said consequences.

> It sounds suspiciously again that you
> want to see the MoQ as complete for all time, (and dare I say, as
> dualistic) 

"The MOQ complete for all time" is a sensitive point, but when a 
theory is forwarded it will present itself as the final word, anything 
else is impossible and we are sure that Pirsig has found the 
answer. The notion that the MOQ can evolve and still be the 
MOQ is impossible.   

> whereas I say - what a waste that would be. (I'd like to
> see some indication that you understand this difference, even if you
> disagree.)

I don't see that an open-ended MOQ is possible. Again, if this 
leads to a rejection of the MOQ...what then?  

Bo